NEWS RELEASE
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/
March 5, 2013
Contact: Commission Office, (360) 902-2267
Commission adopts new sportfishing rules,
approves land transactions
MOSES LAKE - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted numerous changes to sportfishing rules and approved three land transactions during a public meeting March 1 in Moses Lake.
Nearly 70 sportfishing rules were adopted by the commission, a nine-member citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
Rules approved by the commission include:
• Increasing the daily catch limit for walleye from eight to 16 fish in Lake Roosevelt and a portion of the Spokane River - waters where there is an overabundance of walleye. The rule is designed to bring the walleye population back into balance with other fish populations, improving the quality of the fisheries. The rule also opens that portion of the Spokane River to the harvest of walleye year round.
• Limiting anglers to one white sturgeon per year in Washington's waters beginning May 1. Starting Jan. 1, 2014, the new rule will also require anglers to release all white sturgeon in the lower Columbia River below Bonneville Dam, the Washington coast, Puget Sound and their tributaries. However, catch-and-release fishing for the species will be allowed in those areas. The rule is designed to address ongoing concerns about declines in the lower Columbia River white sturgeon population.
• Removing the daily catch limit for channel catfish and the daily catch and size limits for bass and walleye in portions of the Columbia and Snake rivers and their tributaries to assist recovery efforts for salmon and steelhead. The changes are designed to increase the harvest of abundant bass, walleye and channel catfish, which prey on juvenile salmon and steelhead that are listed for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.
• Reducing the daily catch limit of cabezon to one fish in marine areas 4-11 and 13 and prohibiting the retention of cabezon measuring less than 18 inches in length. The rule, designed to provide additional protection for the species, also reduces the fishing season for cabezon in those areas to May 1 through June 15.
Most new rules take effect May 1. Summaries of the rule changes, as adopted, will be available on WDFW's website in the next two weeks.
In other action, the commission approved three land transactions, including the purchase of 1,614 acres in Asotin County. The acquisition is phase two of a multi-year project to secure a total of nearly 12,000 acres of riparian habitat for steelhead and bull trout and terrestrial habitat for deer, bighorn sheep and elk.
The commission also approved the purchase of 195 acres of lowlands in the Chinook River Estuary in Pacific County to increase salmon habitat, and an easement across four properties along Issaquah Creek in King County for the construction of a replacement intake system upstream from the WDFW Issaquah Fish Hatchery.
In other business, the commission held a public hearing on proposed changes to hunting rules. The 17 adjustments proposed by WDFW include allowing the use of illuminated arrow nocks for archery equipment and restoring antlerless elk opportunities for archery hunters in Yakima County, specifically in Game Management Units 352 (Nile) and 356 (Bumping).
The proposed adjustments are available on WDFW's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#12-19-007 . The commission will consider final adoption of the proposed changes to hunting rules at its April 12-13 meeting in Olympia.
________________________________________

• Removing the daily catch limit for channel catfish and the daily catch and size limits for bass and walleye in portions of the Columbia and Snake rivers and their tributaries to assist recovery efforts for salmon and steelhead. The changes are designed to increase the harvest of abundant bass, walleye and channel catfish, which prey on juvenile salmon and steelhead that are listed for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Now of they'd just decide to remove (limit the populations) the Terns and cormorants.

Yet another sleezy WDFW obeying the rotten / crooked Colville tribes' interest in commercial walleye fishing, typical sell out.

So they set small 1 week seasons on PS sturgeon for 1 stinkin year just to close it entirely the next? I am not for catch and keep sturgeon in PS but what i am even more against is management with no research to back it. Slowly but surely they are closing all of our local fisheries.

And what is that cabezon bullcrap. Hardly anyone fishes them and few anglers keep them.....lets cut the limit in half cut the season off AND set an arbitrary length limit...again, making calls to change and limit fisheries with no research to back it.

[Bleeeeep!] WDFW

Having attended many of the sessions where sturgeon issues were discussed I disagree with your position that there is no research to back up the actions the Commission just took. Worse, there are population stressors currently not within the State's perview to control. Like it? NO. Think it prudent at this time? YES.

Now, as for cabazon.....I certainly did not see data from the State which supported the action taken. Let's just hope that the press release presented the salt water changes of most concern to fishermen (that is, those having the most adverse impact on opportunity).

I think the limiting of the cabezon season is too much. Sure, make it 1 fish and even put a minimum length on it but why cut out most of the season? Putting 3 separate restrictions in place at once just seems blunt. It was always nice bringing home a cabezon from the San Juans long after the ling season was over.

"Reducing the daily catch limit of cabezon to one fish in marine areas 4-11 and 13 and prohibiting the retention of cabezon measuring less than 18 inches in length. The rule, designed to provide additional protection for the species, also reduces the fishing season for cabezon in those areas to May 1 through June 15."

I feel absolutely blindsided! I was braced for bad MA4B news...I did not see this coming. It's such a diabolical, sneaky way to all but close the puget sound to bottom fishing.

Now that the ling and cab seasons are the same (and given rockfish are closed entirely)...THE ENTIRE PUGET SOUND IS CLOSED TO BOTTOMFISHING AFTER JUNE 15. That is a more than 75% reduction in our fishing opportunity for those of us who like to go out in our small boats on sunny summer afternoons and bounce jigs around rocks. Formerly, we could fish for cabs til nov 30 (and gently C&R the inevitable lingcod).

Appalling.

To my knowledge there was no indication that a shortening of the season for cabs was even on the table. Proposal #65 mentions only a minimum size restriction of 18" and a retention limit. NOTHING about a season change. Therefore we had no way to speak out against it. I am pretty sure that, legally speaking, WDFW doesn't need to offer up all rule changes for public comment in order to pass them...but it certainly is more reflective of a democracy when they do. I understand that sometimes emergency measures need to be taken to protect wildlife, but this is NOT one of those situations. WDFW's own language on rule #65 even uses the term "stable numbers" in relation to cab stocks. That phrasing does not scream "emergency" to me. This is a heinous circumvention of the public comment process. There would have been some seriously aggressive public commenting against this season change at the feb 8 hearing IF WE HAD KNOWN ABOUT IT.

We already have a 120' depth restriction. Proposal #65 recommended a size restriction for 2013/2014. Fine. A retention limit too...not great but I'd swallow it. But by adding this additional season restriction, there will be no way to attribute an improvement in cab stocks. A responsible, scientific approach would be to implement one change at a time and then study the effects of the change. Even just one frickin year! Why would they implement THREE restrictions at the same time? It proves they are making decisions based on assumption and not data.

People don't generally target Cabezon. They are usually (a nice) by-catch for Lingcod fisherman during the 45 days that the ling season is open in the sound. You are just not going to find many boats out there specifically targeting cabs after ling season is over (which again begs the question...why is the season reduction even necessary, especially since there are two other new changes designed to protect cabezon??). But it sure was nice to have the option.

Think of it...there's going to be no stopping by your favorite reef after fall salmon fishing to experience the joy of a jig hitting the rocks and the powerful downward lunges of a cabezon on the line. No more peaceful structure fishing when you're tired of the din of trolling for salmon or inhaling exhaust fumes. No more fishing for cabs for any of the reasons we used to! OK, maybe not "no more", but far, far less. From 210 days a year down to 45! Outside of those 45 days, just hanging out over known bottomfishing areas and making jigging motions with your rod will make you a suspected lawbreaker. I mean, unless you are fishing for greenling. Yeah, right.

What's worse, the way this was delivered is sneaky as heck. In the press release it's phrased almost as if it's a minor detail. It most definitely is not. It's a deliberate spin to disguise its immensity. Given there probably won't be huge backlash on new restrictions for a fish that's not commonly targeted, WDFW must have thought this the perfect vehicle to sneak through what is, in reality, a monumental change. And the fact they did it without giving the public an opportunity to protest...it's truly diabolical.

It's another victory for those who desire that our marine waters be turned into an aquarium. Or their own personal petting zoo. And it's not a small victory either. I bet this was a "bargaining chip" they used to placate the zealot conservationists. So, chalk one up for the Wild Fish Conservancy and their lackey commissioner. The momentum continues in their favor. Still, I sure would like some answers as to how this got sneaked onto the table and passed.

No mention in the press release of restricting the season for lingcod in MA4B to the same 45 days. That's good, I guess. But I'll keep the champagne corked on that one til the Apr 1 rule pamphlet is printed. I'll believe it when I see it in print.

I am beyond incensed. Hope you didn't like bottomfishing too much. We lose.

Creeps run this state and it's apparent in the way they have and continue to manage our fisheries. The 1 Sturgeon a year rule is just f'd up. 15 years ago Sturgeon fishing was all the rage and now were down to 1 a year, wow. Thanks a lot a'holes.

Flounder are next........................you killers, you.

Cabezon are the perfect exuse to go out and C&R (C&R&Kill) PS Rockfish... I'm all for it. It's difficult to clamp down on seasons for mega-popular Lings and mega-threatened Rocks and leave Cabs unchanged... shortening the Cabezon season will help limit rockfish catch.

Moravec -
Shorting the Chinook salmon season will also help to limit rockfish catch - should that be the next step?

The majority of the anglers that target cabezon do so in relatively shallow water (typically 60 feet or less often less than 30 feet) which limits the impacts on the incidental rockfish. Not the case with many of the incidental rockfish in Chinook salmon fisheries. May be we could expand the 120 foot rule to the various salmon fisheries?

I'm not proposing such changes but just were do we draw the line?

But more to the point the cabezon proposal that when to the public for comment was to establish a minimum size limit of 18 inches. Somehow that got modified into a minimum size limit, a reduced bag limit and a shorter season. BTW there was 83 written (including emails) comments on the proposal the vast majority were against any changes. Out of those 83 comments 5 advocated for changes that occurred; a couple others proposed a maximum size limit. Not quite the transparency that many would like to see in regulation development.

Curt

Once again those that are not and will not get involved are stunned by some of the decisions made by WDFW. I don't agree with some of them and have taken part on more than one occasion to help our commission in understanding how important these decisions are to area fishers and the industries they support.
I did not know about the cabazon changes but was well aware of the sturgeon decisions headed our way!

Get involved and stay informed.


Fishy

I'll get involved.

MA4 Cabezon restriction - what a joke! Even on the outside?

Never have fished much on the outside but I do believe that Fishnut had been calling for people to send emails and attend meetings involving fisheries pertaining to the outside.

I am sure you can do a search.


Fishy

I tirelessly campaigned against rule changes #65 and #69, attended the Feb 8 meeting, and gave testimony. Though I am given to long rants, at least I can back them up with valid data, and action.

Moravec, the cab rule changes have nothing to do with rockfish and WDFW will not attribute any improvement in rockfish stocks to this rule change. It relates to Cabezon stocks only.

No matter what you have heard, Cabs (especially large cabs) are predators of rockfish. They do not just eat crustaceans. I have caught Cabs on numerous occasions while fishing with large greenling as bait for lingcod. I've also seen a cabezon hitchhiker on a rockfish. They eat them. Leave more big cabs (and lings) in the water and you will not see any improvement in rockfish stocks. In fact you will see a decline. This has been proven by studies of San Juans Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Limiting sport harvest backfired and rockfish stocks declined.

And, don't hold your breath in thinking that groundless limitation of our fishing rights now is going to result in less limitation in the future. This is a water-grab by zealots, pure and simple. They do not have any intention of giving ground now or in the future.

OceanSun - yes, on the outside too.

I figured the only benefit was fewer folks out "trying to catch" Cabs... encountering a dozen rockfish in the process... and impeding on rockfish stock improvement. But even though some of you think it's dumb... I could care less about a fish that is 90% skull/10% meat, and is targeted by those who catch plenty of PS rockfish while trying to catch a keeper Cab.

Chasin' Baitman: I also don't believe in harvesting one species to protect another... man has screwed up more than he has saved with that train of thought. If Cabs eat Rocks so be it... but NOT harvesting Cabs will probably have less of an impact on rockfish than limiting the hordes of summer recreational boaters who are just looking to catch something. A biologist once told me they consider a caught rockfish a dead rockfish, even if it is released... so limiting the season on caught/released/"dead" rockfish is fine by me... and I have a difficult time believing that there are many hard-core Cabezon aficionados, who are truely hurt by this proposal.

Strange that after all this discussion you are still completely missing the point. The WDFW has circumvented the public comment process and forced TWO unsubstantiated rule changes that drastically limit our fishing opportunity. This behavior doesn't bother you at all?

Again I say it - the reason they piggybacked a huge groundfishing closure on the cab proposal is precisely BECAUSE cabs are rarely targeted. Your reaction, i.e. "what do I care?" is precisely the response they desire. Whether you fish for cabs or not, this kind of political maneuvering should upset you.

If you can't see a larger picture of diminishing sportfishing rights in WA, get your eyes checked. This year it's cabezon. Next year, who knows. They will eventually get to a fishery you care about. Perhaps only then will you realize that it was a slow chipping-away at fish and seasons and catch limits that nobody made a fuss over. And THAT'S how we ended up having dogfish derbies in the year 2020.

They very nearly got to alot of people with the proposals for MA4B. And it won't be the last time we hear about it. I expect it'll be deja vu all over again next year with this.

In regards to rockfish. Perhaps you were not aware that WDFW itself estimates that RF caught in <120' of water have a 75% chance of surviving. Higher chances if a depth descender is used. And higher still the higher up you go in the water column. You're also dead wrong about harvesting one species to protect another. Man has always been a factor in the marine food chain, and always will (or at least should) be. Artificially removing humans from the chain, creates imbalance.

Find yourself the paper "Development of a new field-based approach for estimating consumption rates of fishes and comparison with a bioenergetics model for lingcod" by Anne H. Beaudreau and Timothy E. Essington. It's a study of lingcod-rockfish predation specifically, but given cabs also eat rockfish, it applies. It is a dense scientific journal with models and equations, but the Makah paraphrased it well in their public comments submitted to WDFW:

"...consumption of rockfish was three times greater in established marine protected areas than in adjacent unprotected areas because the reduced fishing pressure allowed lingcod to grow to greater density and individuals to greater size within the protected area."

THREE. TIMES. GREATER.

Unless you're out there with a team of researchers yourself, the studies of researchers who actually ARE will probably trump your opinion and the hearsay of your biologist drinking buddy.

Closures are NOT the answer. Management is the answer. Unfortunately, WDFW manages by closures.

Baitman: Great analysis of the issue! As far as the additional restrictions on fishing for cabs I have a few questions:

1. Exactly where in the process did the initial published proposed change mutate to what has been reported as the new rule?

2. Did the Commission members actually understand what they supposedly voted upon? (I say "supposedly" because the very recent public announcement of reducing the daily limit for blackmouth in MA 9 included an erroneous description).

3. If the public was not afforded an opportunity to review and comment upon all aspects of that particular rule in its full context would that invalidate the approval action by the Commission?